Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
No , definitly no. The risk is too high and the costs are very big.
Besides that, there are other way of producing electricity, cheaper and healthier for the environment.
Besides that, there are other way of producing electricity, cheaper and healthier for the environment.
please name the ways of producing electricity, a similar quantity of electricity like a nuclear power plant.
Which energy is cheaper and healthier to the environment than nuclear energy that can supply whole country?
I`m not talking about a source that can produce a similar quantity but a source that can produce electricty in a , let`s say, a less dangerous way.
And if you ask me, the mother nature has all you need: water, wind, sun...
You can make electricity even from litter.
(edited)
And if you ask me, the mother nature has all you need: water, wind, sun...
You can make electricity even from litter.
(edited)
Sun? Yeah, it's good, but the solar cells are dangerous for the environmnet, and they aren't recyclable. It won't be a problem, if you could use them for a long time... but you couldn't since they would burn out after less than 10 years.
Water? Okay. You need a sea or a waterfall. Well, it's a little complicated if there aren't one...
Wind? Absolutley unpredictable.
Water? Okay. You need a sea or a waterfall. Well, it's a little complicated if there aren't one...
Wind? Absolutley unpredictable.
no, the production and use of energy MUST be in control of people, free and public,
as it must be for air and water...
So it's necesary that eveyone produce a bit.. not that someone produce it for everyone!
as it must be for air and water...
So it's necesary that eveyone produce a bit.. not that someone produce it for everyone!
So everyone should take care of their electricity by themselves? How does it work in cities?
Denmark has sh*tloads of wind turbines but only 21% of energy needed is produced by these turbines. Plus the noise.
Solar panels are way too expensive and you need to replace them after every 7-10 years.
Hydroenergy is not a solution either, firstly because most countries got no place to produce it(no big rivers) and secondly because it would be disastrous for animal and fish habitats.
(edited)
Denmark has sh*tloads of wind turbines but only 21% of energy needed is produced by these turbines. Plus the noise.
Solar panels are way too expensive and you need to replace them after every 7-10 years.
Hydroenergy is not a solution either, firstly because most countries got no place to produce it(no big rivers) and secondly because it would be disastrous for animal and fish habitats.
(edited)
Definitely yes. There is no way that you can produce such an amount of electricity with alternative energy sources at this point of history.
Read this first, then answer the poll:
http://wp.me/piCIJ-122
done? now come back to reality.
http://wp.me/piCIJ-122
done? now come back to reality.
Which energy is cheaper and healthier to the environment than nuclear energy that can supply whole country?
healthier ?? Any idea how long nuclear waste has to be buried and protected before it can't harm people anymore ... over 200.000 years :S That's not in any way healthier! And also nuclear energy is typical human-short thinking. We need it now and not tomorrow, even if we have the possiblity to make real clean energy. No, we use uranium the limited amount of uranium and give the problems to many generations after us.
And what is happening in Japan is the reality, it's not save. Maybe save enough when nothing goes wrong, but that still isn't save.
(edited)
healthier ?? Any idea how long nuclear waste has to be buried and protected before it can't harm people anymore ... over 200.000 years :S That's not in any way healthier! And also nuclear energy is typical human-short thinking. We need it now and not tomorrow, even if we have the possiblity to make real clean energy. No, we use uranium the limited amount of uranium and give the problems to many generations after us.
And what is happening in Japan is the reality, it's not save. Maybe save enough when nothing goes wrong, but that still isn't save.
(edited)
So everyone should take care of their electricity by themselves? How does it work in cities?
Denmark has sh*tloads of wind turbines but only 21% of energy needed is produced by these turbines. Plus the noise.
Solar panels are way too expensive and you need to replace them after every 7-10 years.
Hydroenergy is not a solution either, firstly because most countries got no place to produce it(no big rivers) and secondly because it would be disastrous for animal and fish habitats.
Seriously thats outdated info.
Photovoltaic panels live much longer nowadays and are much more efficient. 25 years is no issue if you dont buy chinese ones, that is.
In germany newest data say same price as nuclear electricity this year for photovoltaic and next year for wind energy. And thats just the beginning, the potencial is much bigger and the cost for buying or producing the technology will still fall a lot.
In 2009 a friend wanted to buy some panels for his roof and had to pay 50000 euro, just 6 month later prices were down to 35000. Really a lot has happended in that field.
Btw one can build windparks nowadays offshore and its allready happening.
Denmark has sh*tloads of wind turbines but only 21% of energy needed is produced by these turbines. Plus the noise.
Solar panels are way too expensive and you need to replace them after every 7-10 years.
Hydroenergy is not a solution either, firstly because most countries got no place to produce it(no big rivers) and secondly because it would be disastrous for animal and fish habitats.
Seriously thats outdated info.
Photovoltaic panels live much longer nowadays and are much more efficient. 25 years is no issue if you dont buy chinese ones, that is.
In germany newest data say same price as nuclear electricity this year for photovoltaic and next year for wind energy. And thats just the beginning, the potencial is much bigger and the cost for buying or producing the technology will still fall a lot.
In 2009 a friend wanted to buy some panels for his roof and had to pay 50000 euro, just 6 month later prices were down to 35000. Really a lot has happended in that field.
Btw one can build windparks nowadays offshore and its allready happening.
over 200.000 years :S That's not in any way healthier! And also nuclear energy is typical human-short thinking
Yeah and what people forget is that the companies who causes the nuclear waste will belong gone, so its up to society thus taxpayers. Well and even 20000 years is a lot of money to take c are o such things. Dumb people allwys forget that part of the calculation.;)
Yeah and what people forget is that the companies who causes the nuclear waste will belong gone, so its up to society thus taxpayers. Well and even 20000 years is a lot of money to take c are o such things. Dumb people allwys forget that part of the calculation.;)